posted at 7:31 pm on January 11, 2013 by Allahpundit

No surprise that a pol from Alaska won’t touch guns, but in case you’re one of three people left in America who still thinks there’s a chance a new AWB will pass this year, let a highly vulnerable red-state Democrat who’s up for reelection put your mind at ease.

Asked which gun control measures he would support, Begich said, “I’m not supporting anything at this point, and I want to see what those recommendations are.”

Begich continued, “We have to be very careful that we don’t jump to the clamor of emotion. … I don’t believe that we just need to pile on new laws and suddenly that solves all the problems.”…

Responding to another question about whether he would support a renewal of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, which outlawed the manufacture of several types of semiautomatic firearms for civilian use from 1994 to 2004, Begich said he is “not interested.”

Other red-state Democrats up for reelection: Mary Landrieu, Max Baucus, Tim Johnson, Kay Hagan, and Mark Pryor. Landrieu and Baucus voted no when the last AWB came up for renewal in 2004, and although Pryor voted yes, Arkansas wasn’t quite as red then as it is now. There’s no chance Reid will get to 60 in the Senate for a new ban; there’s a very slim chance that he won’t even get to 50. If you’re Pryor and you’re facing a tough campaign on unfavorable terrain, what’s your incentive for voting for a new AWB that hasn’t a prayer of passing?

And before you ask, no, the RINOs likely aren’t going to come to Obama’s rescue either. The other senator from Alaska sounds unsurprisingly chilly to new gun regulations too:

“I have a real hard time with this. We’re talking about the Second Amendment,” Murkowski continued. “A Second Amendment right in my view cannot be trumped, in my view, with an executive order so I’m not quite sure where the vice president’s coming from on this. I’ve suggested that — well, look, if what you’re talking about here is greater enforcement of existing laws, OK, let’s talk about that, but if through executive order you put a limitation or restriction through my executive rights or your executive rights, that’s wrong, we do not allow that to happen.”…

“As far as Sen. Feinstein’s proposal, again, we haven’t seen that actual legislative text,” Murkowki’s said. “I’ve heard enough of what she’s proposing to have very real concerns. The things that she is talking about would, in my view, demonize those of us who lawfully own, respect firearms without solving the problem.”

The NYT published a piece last night gently warning the congregation to lower its expectations for a new AWB. That also explains Biden’s conspicuous omission of the ban yesterday when rattling off gun-control measures on which he senses a consensus developing. (Even some Republicans have sounded their approval for more limited regulations, like a ban on high-capacity magazines.) Makes me wonder if Obama and Reid will dare disappoint their base by failing to even push for a Senate vote on Feinstein’s bill or whether they feel obliged to go forward in hopes of blaming everything on the GOP when it fails. That depends, I suppose, on whether they can convince Landrieu et al. to vote yes full in the knowledge that the ban won’t pass. If they can’t, then what’s to be gained from a tough floor vote in which the bill fails due to bipartisan opposition? It’ll damage the “GOP obstruction” talking point. Better to not offer the bill at all and have Obama and Reid issue statements that it’s pointless to proceed knowing that those damned Republicans would filibuster it and break America’s heart again. But I don’t know — maybe that wouldn’t be good enough to satisfy the left. If you believe Andrea Mitchell, O’s “absolutely committed” to pushing for a new AWB and it’ll definitely be in the Biden task force’s recommendations on Tuesday.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Comments

conclusion: due technological progress in the lethality of weapons, the intent of the 2nd amendment cannot be fulfilled without extreme lethal consequences for our society. consequences that the large majority are not willing to bare.

nathor on January 11, 2013 at 7:57 PM

.
For the second time in two days, I find myself invoking the “Patrick Henry quote”:

I contacted your office this morning to inquire about your position on the 2nd Amendment and your staff directed me to your site at senate.gov. I did not thoroughly examine every area of your Senate website; however, I was unable to find any information related to the 2nd Amendment, nor any statements about Senator FeinStein’s proposed legislation or Vice President Biden’s recent efforts. However, as a resident of the great state of Arizona I thought that I would share my position.

While many modern Americans focus on the freedoms they still, or may, retain, I prefer to examine the liberties being lost. As I survey and examine the history of our country, beginning with early origins and moving to present day, one can easily conclude that the previous 150 years of U.S. history record the incremental suppression and destruction of liberty beneath a constant growth of government power.

This decline of liberty results not only from specific acts of government — but also from the cumulative impact of hundreds of thousands of laws, regulations, decrees, taxes, and the legions of government officials wielding discretionary power over other Americans. The proof resides in world history, and in our own, that government largess is directly proportional to coercion and inversely proportional to liberty.

In addition, history reveals that men are more disposed to suffer, while the injuries are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are, or have become, accustomed. Recent in our history our citizens have observed:

1. The flagrant obstruction of justice;
2. The refusal to assent to, and enforce, the law;
3. The denial of the benefits of trial by jury;
4. The loss of private property without just compensation;
5. The restriction of their speech;
6. The coercion of citizens to purchase products;
7. The refusal to secure our borders;
8. The passage of law that has not even been fully read or understood before casting vote;
9. The bolstering of unconstitutional agencies and regulatory bodies to harass the people;
10. The frivolous expenditure and squandering of public monies;
11. The use of public money to bailout private organizations; and
12. The destruction of personal privacy.

During the design and implementation of these oppressions the people have petitioned for redress and these repeated petitions have been answered only by additional injury. Now, following a recent national tragedy, we have been presented with pending draconian legislation and irrational discourse regarding every aspect of our firearms.

Examining history of the aforementioned oppressions and repeated injury placed on the people, it is a clear observation that the intended restrictions on our firearms are nothing more than pursuit of one object, to reduce the people absolute despotism, and it is again time to examine our future security.

I am a God fearing man, husband, father, and Marine Corps veteran that took a binding lifelong oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. The Constitution is not a living document and the 2nd Amendment is a straight forward statement recognizing an inalienable right to defend self and country against tyranny. I have been a law abiding citizen all my life, however, if further legislation, rules, regulations, or decrees should be issued that:

1. By stroke of pen or utterance, declare my property, ex post facto, an illicit possession;
2. Further restrict possession, manufacture, sale, or use of firearms, firearm accessories and components, or ammunition;
3. Place additional burdens on firearm owners through any additional taxes, fees or licensure;
4. Require any form of firearm registration, recording, or enumeration; OR
5. Deprive myself, family or fellow citizen the right and ability to defend themselves;

I will not participate. Against my hope and desire to be left alone, through the coercive arm of the state, I will then be forced to enter a non-law abiding status. I am not a subject or servant, nor are my family members, nor my fellow citizens.

Our Founders spoke of checks and balances within our form of government; Outside of the three branches also stand the 1st and 2nd Amendments. Without the 2nd, the 1st also falls, and so will go the remainder. As the 2nd Amendment states our inalienable right to bear arms shall not be infringed, there is no room for compromise on this issue.

1. The Dick Act removed the expectation that the average, able-bodied American male would serve in a local militia (along with that the expectation that you will arm yourself, you will have ammo, and you will know how to use your weapon). And if you don’t, OK, you’re not going to prison, but your neighbors and family would think less of you. Shame used to exist in America.

It was more important to fill out the ranks of an always too-small U.S. military at a moment’s notice with Guardsmen than in adhering to the spirit of the Second Amendment. Congress could save a few bucks for political reasons while consistently leaving America inadequately defended and unable to carry out military operations internationally when these brilliant politicians saw fit.

2. Seems that the idea that the locally elected peace officer (namely the Sheriff) could and should deputize citizens and stand up for the rights of the county if necessary is long gone. They’ve been co-opted by higher government functionaries and the Common Citizen has been relegated to “civilian” status. Unless you’re active in Federal or State service under arms, guess what, you’re a civilian, too.

Rather than encouraging every male Citizen to not only defend their country and their families, we’ve been relegated to sheep status-we cannot be trusted with such power and law enforcement is a specialty of government-run paramilitary forces that answer to politicians rather than the Citizenry. The police are taught that we have no rights, they are the final arbiters of the Constitution, and that we’re scum that cannot be trusted. Any ne of us could be some kind of criminal or terrorist.

Deputize us and let us patrol (armed, of course) our communities and work with the local peace officers. Think you’ll see massive reductions in crime? Bet on it. But the massive propaganda campaign based on the Trayvon Martin case makes sure that will never happen.

In most places in this country, if you’re walking around with a rifle, folks will panic and call the police and you will be hassled and probably arrested. What used to be normal in this country is now abnormal (like so many things).

Don’t forget all those dem senators voted to confirm Sotomeyer and Kagen. Where have they stood on gun ownership? If you really want to decrease the murder rate establish a scaple and vacum cleaner ban. This will reduce the murder rate by 1.5 million a year!

Once again, we’re missing where the left is targeting. Where they’re going to ram things down is on the state level. While we can all crow that AWBs won’t pass Federally, they’re going to ram that and worse down our throats in states like CT, NY, RI, etc.

So, just like during the general election, we’ll sit there all convinced we’ve got a great chance to “win,” but the left knows where to fight and how, and we’ll be shocked and awed when liberty takes another hit.

I don’t believe that we just need to pile on new laws and suddenly that solves all the problems.”…

When JFK was shot there were some assorted 22,000 gun control laws on the books of this nation. This leftist game of jumping on a “crisis for taking away the good citizen’s guns is despicable–but expected from the Democratic left. They thirst to disarm us and then…..?

Following your logic, then we should bring printing back to hand presses.

Technological advances do not cause a Right to change.

The “Rights” are recognized, not given. The Founders wanted the population on equal footing with the government, including the “automatic” weapons and cannons of the time. Yeah, they had “automatic” weapons. In the hands of the citizenry, not the government.

Following your logic, then we should bring printing back to hand presses.

Technological advances do not cause a Right to change.

The “Rights” are recognized, not given. The Founders wanted the population on equal footing with the government, including the “automatic” weapons and cannons of the time. Yeah, they had “automatic” weapons. In the hands of the citizenry, not the government.

I don’t think Glocks and AR-15s can do a whole lot. Look at Atlantic Monthly’s photo gallery of what happened to Qaddafi’s artillery, armor and convoys at the hands of French fighters…the “freedom fighters” would never have won with their AK’s and RPGs.

Also, if the standard U.S. firearm were a ray gun, how many of us would really be interested? I’m guessing that we like guns that actually go *POP* with burning powder sending a projectile downrange. Besides, John Wayne and Annie Oakley never fired ray guns.

You are quite incorrect, as proven by recent events in Libya, Egypt and Syria. Assasd is getting his ass whupped. Do you need reminding of all the countries with overwhelming tech the got their asses handed to them in Afghanistan? Look what happened to us in Vietnam.

The English didn’t consider the colonial rabble as much of a threat either.

sharrukin on January 12, 2013 at 12:29 AM

You’re correct. Have you read what happened to the signers of the Declaration?

You are quite incorrect, as proven by recent events in Libya, Egypt and Syria. Assasd is getting his ass whupped. Do you need reminding of all the countries with overwhelming tech the got their asses handed to them in Afghanistan? Look what happened to us in Vietnam.

The English didn’t consider the colonial rabble as much of a threat either.

dogsoldier on January 12, 2013 at 11:13 AM

Sometimes, but for the most part, no. Italy in Ethiopia, the Germans against the Warsaw uprisings, the Zulus against the British, the Amerindians against the U.S. Army, the revolts against the Soviets in Hungary and Czechoslovakia. Some successes here and there, but in the long run, failure.

As for the English, we had comparable arms including cannon, warships and cavalry. And don’t forget that many of our officers were trained in the British Army.

In Afghanistan and Vietnam you have a good point. But, in both cases they had somewhere to run to and a supply of armaments from other areas.

As for Assad, think about how long he’s hung in there since all this started because of the Syrian army’s modern armaments…I think if he’s in there for X amount of time longer (who knows?), then the Turks and or the French, etc. will help out Al-Qaeda.

The Mujahedin in Afghanistan didn’t really turn the tables on the Russians until they received Stingers from us, thus neutralizing Soviet air power.

No way any modern military is going to divest themselves of their modern weaponry in the belief that it’s a waste of money and that personal arms are good enough.

Still, I do see what you’re saying and I agree that it is possible to fight off a more advanced military with simpler weapons-history leaves no doubt about that.

The next time anyone argues that M4’s were never envisioned by founding fathers who were dealing with muskets tell them this:

The founding fathers believed in arming citizens. They believed the citizens MUST be armed with muskets. Why? Because the British military was armed with muskets.

The founding fathers believed the only way to defend yourself against attack is by having the same level of weapon your attackers used.

Had they not believed such, they would have said that rocks, spears and swords were the weapons of choice for the citizenry.

Which would mean the first battle of the Revolution would have been fought over an armory of sticks and sharp metal objects. But it wasn’t. It was fought over muskets, powder and shot- which the British knew equalized the forces.

So, when the Left says there is no need for an M4, and the old guys writing the Constitution were dealing with muskets, remind them the “M4″ of 1776 WAS the musket.

conclusion: due technological progress in the lethality of weapons, the intent of the 2nd amendment cannot be fulfilled without extreme lethal consequences for our society. consequences that the large majority are not willing to bare.

nathor on January 11, 2013 at 7:57 PM

Easy solution: amend the constitution. Because right now the constitution says that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It doesn’t qualify this with a “unless the arms get too gosh darn scary” recitation. So – amend the constitution or stfu.

Actually it is a bit simpler than that. The preface of the Second Amendment is “A well regulated militia…” While many in the left defy their seventh grade English teacher and construe this as a limiting clause that is the subject of the sentence, it is in fact a prefatory clause that defines the quality expected of the ‘right of the people’, the subject. The citizenry is to armed to the extent necessary to secure the State from an equally armed opponent of the State.

Why don’t you tell it to Soviet and American military brass who both lost in Afghanistan to sheep fuggers armed with hunting rifles and AK47s, not even Glocks.

Revisionist history never works.

riddick on January 12, 2013 at 1:06 PM

You don’t confront a professional army head on or in the open either. You fight them by ambush and sniper.

That’s pretty much how we defeated the Redcoats. The Continental Army was far too ill trained and equipped to face British Redcoats in line battle of the time. Nope, we hid behind trees and took out officers with Kentucky long rifles which had several times the range of the muskets the British were using. And we only confronted them in open combat where we had surprise or superior numbers.

If you want to look at how to run a successful insurgent revolution, study Washington. The weapons may be dated, but the tactics are still good!

How many willing soldiers would it take to pacify a country of 300 million, nearly a third of which were armed with modern small-arms and able to steal other weaponry? 5 million?

iconoclast on January 12, 2013 at 2:32 PM

Why don’t you tell it to Soviet and American military brass who both lost in Afghanistan to sheep fuggers armed with hunting rifles and AK47s, not even Glocks.

Revisionist history never works.

riddick on January 12, 2013 at 1:06 PM

Those are different societies…they are used to fighting, dying and getting by on very little. There are also literally tons of big caliber artillery shells to use for IEDs stockpiled all over those two countries. Not so here.

I’m just trying to get anyone out there with any bright ideas to think about it before going off half-cocked and getting blown to hell…and taking a lot of other folks with them.

Keep in mind that these Leftists are patient. If they can dry up the supply of arms and ammo starting soon, then a generation down the line you’ll have very few Americans with operational weapons and ammo…and most of them will have been brainwashed into believing guns are evil and that the State is their Big Brother…we’ll be dead or in nursing homes.

Actually, all they have to do is control transportation and supplies. Stand out there with your gun waving the Flag and you won’t have to worry about the authorities…the local, hungry, inconvenienced populace will probably take you down just to make the food, fuel and electricity come back.

Obama will talk big to his base and then turn to the new mantra for the Democrats. “Republicans are obstructing us again”

Same trick, same result in the new America. Republicans bad, Obama good and the MSM will go right along and not question why they didn’t find something that could pass both houses of Congress.

Conan on January 12, 2013 at 11:23 AM

Earth to Conan. There is nothing that will pass, so who cares what the media thinks or disseminates? Isn’t the fact that most of politicians realize that they’re in area involving changing a birth right and are afraid of losing their jobs proof enough of that to you? It would appear that Obama’s own party members are obstructionists for reasons of self-preservation. All of this will go away as quickly as a popcorn fart in a tempest.